What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4480086?

The tribunal order states: Thilephan Pavalasingam Julian and Zahra Din must pay Golzar Ltd $5,266.21

How much money was awarded in case 4480086?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4480086?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage, Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4480086?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10536206-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4480086?

The tribunal order states: Thilephan Pavalasingam Julian and Zahra Din must pay Golzar Ltd $5,266.21

How much money was awarded in case 4480086?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4480086?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage, Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4480086?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10536206-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Kraack Road, Dome Forest, Warkworth 0981 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4480086 — Leaks

Order

Thilephan Pavalasingam Julian and Zahra Din must pay Golzar Ltd $5,266.21 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (5069894-010) to Golzar Ltd immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 25 January 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants had not paid their last week of rent.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenants are required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenants must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenants did not return the keys.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The bathroom window was broken; b. The carpet in the hallway was ripped due to dog damage; c. The carpet in the lounge had water damage due to a leaking fish tank; d. The carpet in the bedrooms were damaged from dog urine; e. The dishwasher had a large dent in it that required the dishwasher to be replaced; f. The ceiling and window frames in one of the bedrooms had been painted black and needed to be returned to white; g. There was a broken power plug frame in one of the rooms; h. The light fitting in the master bedroom was broken; i. The rubbish burning drum was burnt out from having put batteries and cans into it when it was only designed to burn general household rubbish.
The landlord has provided evidence that proves the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants did not appear at the hearing nor did they submit any defence evidence to the landlord’s claims. Therefore, the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Specifically, the carpet was eight years old, so the insurer deducted 50% depreciation from the cost of new carpet in its award to the landlord, in addition to the deduction of $500.00 excess for each of the 5 claims it accepted. I have deducted 50% depreciation from the invoice for the new carpet in the lounge, that was not covered by insurance. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Thilephan Pavalasingam Julian and Zahra Din must pay Golzar Ltd $5,266.21 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (5069894-010) to Golzar Ltd immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 25 January 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants had not paid their last week of rent.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenants are required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenants must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenants did not return the keys.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The bathroom window was broken; b. The carpet in the hallway was ripped due to dog damage; c. The carpet in the lounge had water damage due to a leaking fish tank; d. The carpet in the bedrooms were damaged from dog urine; e. The dishwasher had a large dent in it that required the dishwasher to be replaced; f. The ceiling and window frames in one of the bedrooms had been painted black and needed to be returned to white; g. There was a broken power plug frame in one of the rooms; h. The light fitting in the master bedroom was broken; i. The rubbish burning drum was burnt out from having put batteries and cans into it when it was only designed to burn general household rubbish.
The landlord has provided evidence that proves the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants did not appear at the hearing nor did they submit any defence evidence to the landlord’s claims. Therefore, the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Specifically, the carpet was eight years old, so the insurer deducted 50% depreciation from the cost of new carpet in its award to the landlord, in addition to the deduction of $500.00 excess for each of the 5 claims it accepted. I have deducted 50% depreciation from the invoice for the new carpet in the lounge, that was not covered by insurance. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4480086 — Leaks at 15 Kraack Road, Dome Forest, Warkworth 0981

Tenancy Tribunal case 4480086 — Leaks at 15 Kraack Road, Dome Forest, Warkworth 0981

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management